Foma and Forte: Why so cheap?

[GeorgesGiralt]

Hi !
This could look like an out of scope comment, but think about it...
If I'm going to buy some laundry powder in Europe, I need to work, say, 1/4 of an hour for the package.
If I go to former USSR countries, and ask the same question about the time it need one to buy a laundry soap, they tell me about a 1/4 of an hour...
Forte and Foma are cheap because we do things in reverse. We buy from central europa and bring it back home. This is why Kodak sued people for buying Kodak products in middle east and selling them in Europa or USA.... A big loss in profit.
Price tag and cost of workmanship are two different things. Would you buy a Forte 400 roll if it costed you the Tri-X price ? I'm not sure.....

 

[Roger Hicks]

Would you buy a Forte 400 roll if it costed you the Tri-X price ? I'm not sure.....

Forte 400 and Foma 200 I might, because I like the tonality so much.

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

 

[dphill]

Just my 2 cents worth as the range of replies just about covers the topic.

It comes down to cost of labor.
As long as there is "film photography" there will always be a "cheap" film, paper, etc. And by "cheap" I mean inexpensive, relative to other manufacture's products.

Quality is subjective once you get past actual production quality control, uneven coating, pinholes in the emulsion, that sort of thing.

I didn't mention the base material because that, like the use of Rodinal, can be very important to some people. Some will put up with an amount of film curl that would drive others to frustration because they like what the base adds to the ambiance of the negative (or the way it stains with their dev).

As far as the actual conglomeration of stuff called emulsion is concerned, that goes beyond cost or quality into the realm of aesthetics very much like the case of the Holga cameras.
Take APX400.
I never used the "old" formula film having been involved in a much more complicated life during that time. In the '70s when I WAS active in photography, I used Tri-X for fast film. Until I found Ilford, but that's another story. I love the new APX400! Of the few rolls that I have used (Diafine @800) I am amazed with the tonality and contrast. I have some waiting to be developed from a trip to San Francisco last month(heat wave damn it, no fog!) that I shot at 320 and plan to dev with D-76 1+1. I imagine that I will be pleasantly surprised with that combo also. Too bad it is a finite commodity.
Other people can't look at the name APX400 without retching and proclaiming that anyone who likes it could not possibly be a member of the artistic elite (dilettante or otherwise)!

Back to topic
It comes down to find what you like and take pictures. Burn film (with light of course)! As much as you can. The ratio of keepers to throwaways will increase as you progress. That's what its all about isn't it?
Use the product combo that fits your vision and/or bank account.

Dan

 

[PhotoJim]

Because of the metric system?

Grams per square cm or square metre would make more sense, then, no?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Regarding the issue of leakage with 120--this problem has come up with Forte and Efke, but not Foma.

In any case, once you are aware of the issue, the solution is just to handle the film a bit more carefully. Load and unload in subdued light and store the exposed film out of direct light until processing. I use an opaque plastic bag left over from a box of 5x7" or postcard paper, but a pocket, film boxes, or Lowe Film Drop will do, or you can get plastic MF film tubes from J&C.

 

[Petzi]

Grams per square cm or square metre would make more sense, then, no?

On a side note, "Because of the metric system?" is a quote from the movie titled "Pulp Fiction".

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've tried the Foma 100 and 400 in 120 rolls.. The 400 I expose at 200/250.. The 100 I expose at 100, sometimes 50/80. QC, well.. it's not Kodak or Ilford but it's a lot cheaper. I like the 100.

I've tried Forte 400 in 4x5 sheets, I thought the QC was fine. As is the Foma 100 in 4x5 sheets. Just fine for me.

 

[dancqu]

I did bock when Kodak went to $7.50 for Tech. Pan. Dan

I did balk when Kodak went to ...

So, Bach, balk, and bock beer. Dan

 

[Petzi]

I kind of like that "bock". In Germany, a "Bock" is a he-goat or a ram. He never does what he is supposed to. Stubborn. Children can bock, too...

 

[jmailand]

I like the 200 speed emulsion of these films. I like the Fortepan 200 because it has a nice old film tone to it. The quality control is bellow Ilford, Kodak. The film curls up a lot when it dries though. The Fomapan 200 is a T Grain like film. The biggest drawback it has blue polyester base that make you think you didn't fix it right the first couple of time you use it. You will have to adjust filtration for variable contrast filters because of the blue base. It does not curl up as bad as the Forte though. Also a five minute presoak is a good idea with these film as their Anti-Halation coating washes off with a very bright blue green color that looks like antifreeze. This doesn't effect the quality of the film its just different from what you would get from name brands. I keep it around because its cheap and I'm always playing around with old Folders and TLRs I buy off eBay. So its a good test film for these cameras. If your into experimenting I'd say buy some, you might like It. If you want more consistency I'd stick with the names brands.

 

[paulgray]

Kodak Ilford eyc Why so expensive?

With automation and technology so advanced and capital expenses long since recovered... Why so expensive?
It actually cost more in the Forte and Foma plants.
BTW Forte is gone, histore finished - bankrupt for good.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

Kodak, Ilford and Fuji all have extensive quality control at their plants, and much more recently modernized plants than Foma, Forte and EFKE. The capital expenses have not been recovered.

In addition, all three companies have extensive R&D facilities which just recently have led to the update of color films at Kodak and may yet yield improved B&W films. Forte, Foma and EFKE are using formulas for products that were developed in the 40s and have since become public. They need do no R&D. In fact, the difficulties that M&P are having duplicating Azo paper with a European firm probably stems from the lack of R&D staff at the company in question.

Beyond that, Kodak has had extensive R&D costs for process chemistry which has mainly been copied by other companies with no need of the R&D work. So, Fuji color kits for C41 and E6 are merely Kodacopies. This makes the Kodak product more expensive.

 

[ronlamarsh]

All things not being equal i like the foma films. I shoot 6x6,5x7 and 4x5. I have not experienced any issues with sharpness or grain with any of these wether developed in rodinal or D-23 1:1.
I buy foma in 5X7 because I can get 50 sheets for $33 from freestyle you'll find the kodak product runs around $60 the same price differences in 4X5 and 120 prevail especially if you buy arista EDU ultra.
I can't gripe about kodak they make a great product, I just can't afford to use it. They have a huge corporation to run and stockholders to please so I can't expect them to be overly concerned about my buget.
I honestly can't see a sharpness difference in 4X5 or 5X7 but I haven't compared 6X6. I also stick to a maximum print size of 16X20 so maybe i'd see something at 32X40 or larger but that is out of my printing league.
Try it if it works for you enjoy the savings.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Regarding the term "silver rich". It should mean the amount of remaining silver making up the image, not the amount of undeveloped silver salts in the emulsion. Modern films may have less silver in the emulsion, yet more of that silver gets turned into visible silver in the final developed film. Thus a "silver-rich" image. The silver that remains undeveloped and gets fixed out is wasted silver.

 

[dxphoto]

Foma 400 is not bad, better than forte 400 and classic 400, i mean the speed. I like foma 100 too, trying foma 200 now.

I used foma RC paper, except it weight less compare to other brand, everything else is fine. and at least they are perfect for contact sheets.

forte has QC problems on both their film and paper.

At last, I hope they can remind the cheap price. I love tri-x, the 100' box used to be $30, but now it's like $45.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Fomapan 200 is NOT a T-grain film. It is a traditional film, and it processes like one. Make sure to do a good pre-wet, and the blue color will go away. Regardless of the grain structure of the film, it produces some beautiful images and is VERY reasonably priced. It is also a terrific film for doing alt-process work.

 

[JLP]

Having only limited experience with Foma 100 how does the 200 compare or differ except from one stop? The 100 is very nice in Pyrocat.


jan

 

[Silverhead]

Foma 100 vs 200

Having only limited experience with Foma 100 how does the 200 compare or differ except from one stop? The 100 is very nice in Pyrocat.


jan

The 200 has a slightly contrastier look to it over the 100. It does have a T-max-type ambience, but it is definitely not a t-grained film. It's just about the sharpest-looking 200 speed film I've ever seen...captures details very well. Not quite as much mid-tones as the 100, but not really an enormous sacrifice (in my opinion), considering the flexibility that the 200 speed gives it.

 

[dxphoto]

The Fomapan 200 is NOT a T-grain film. It is a traditional film, and it processes like one. Make sure to do a good pre-wet, and the blue color will go away. Regardless of the grain structure of the film, it produces some beautiful images and is VERY reasonably priced. It is also a terrific film for doing alt-process work.

Hi, I am not planning on pre-wetting it. Is it ok? I am planning on shooting it as 200 and soup it in rodinal 1+50 for 9 minutes (20C/68F). Is it a good start point for this film? Or I should use d76 1+1.

Thanks.

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Dear Dave,

Why are they cheaper?

Lower rents, lower taxes, lower salaries, less research and development...

a printing-out paper you can get better densities with lower amounts of silver: even bThese are for the most part less sharp than modern emulsions, and grainier. I do not necessarily see this as a drawback -- I am very fond of several of these films -- but those addicted to maximum sharpness and minimum grain will see a difference,

I don't know from what source the 'less research and development' comes. In fact the east european photographic materials manufacturers are spending a lot of money on research. Look at the data of holographic materials. They beat all the rest. I worked with Forte in the past. They do a lot of research. The MTF values of Forte films are pretty good compared to others. I do not know what is meant by sharpness, but may be other manufacturers perform good in this undefined property.

Jed

 

[JLP]

Silverhead, Thanks for the explanation. Sounds like i need to try it for alternative printing, i do like the midrange from the Foma100 for silver printing.


jan

 

[PHOTOTONE]

forte has QC problems on both their film and paper.

Well, I think you should specify "which" Forte film you are referring to that has quality control problems. My personal experience, I just exposed (over the last two weeks) about 150 sheets of 4x5 Forte ISO 200 (Arista.edu 200-Made in Hungary). And I have not found a single manufacturing flaw, the only flaws I have found were actually a few tiny dust specks from film holders that I didn't clean well enough. My quality control problem, not the film. I have also used Forte 100 (Arista.edu 100-made in Hungary) in 120 size, and I did not like the curl, but the emulsion was just fine. I have never had a QC issue with Forte paper either.